How typical are Blogging Tories?

There is, however, another side to this question that Scott mentions tangentially, but doesn't explore. Are the views espoused at BT typical of the Conservative party?

I dont think we should be getting into the same pattern over calling all the Conservatives xenophobes or whatever just because we see a few of their bloggers state what we consider to be idiotic remarks.

Now, if Monte Solberg starts saying stupid stuff like that, and/or high ranking Conservative Party members, then we need to get concerned. But not til then.

Fair enough. But what are we supposed to do with, say, Vitor Marciano? He is on the National Council of the CPC. How different are his views from those of the Blogging Tories generally? If you were to judge him by the BT posts he recommends to his readers, you'd have to assume that he approves of many of BT's least attractive posts. And if a member of National Council approves, should we not conclude that this is (sadly) reflective of something in the party and its activists?

17 comments:

Vitor is a real fool. And that's why I think the BT are representative of the CPC. He is on the National Council of that party, yet he has engaged himself in making libellous comments about others (and in a highly foolish manner at that!). It's because of people like Vitor that I am doing my best to let people know that they should not vote CPC (I have already converted a lot of people away from the CPC right here in Calgary!!!!).

Buckets -- Interesting post. Mr. Tribe is free to express his opinion, of course, but I think he has painted The Blogging Tories with a very broad brushstroke.

As one of only two journalists (and the only columnist) in TBT, I think that Mr. Tribe should examine the diversity of views in this group. From Burkean Canuck to Let it Bleed to Tory Red to myself, there are some very intellectual thinkers.

Sure, some people use stronger language, and others use a more attacking style. But I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It gives people the opportunity to choose the ones they like, and the ones they don't like.

I would imagine that people who read the Progressive Bloggers think the same way. And perhaps about Mr. Tribe's writing style and opinions, too.

That being said, I would like to point out that Mr. Tribe - and Mark [Section 15] - both used an attacking style to critique a couple of my blog entries. I addressed their comments in this blog entry:

Buckets, Buckets, Buckets.And after I recently said some nice things about you too.What looney things have I directed my readers to? Some examples please.

Now, I have pointed out that you are a mysterious, anonymous, prolific and effective blogger. I wondered whose payroll you were on. These questions have still not been answered.I will comment that since I took my gentle run at you, you have become more moderate and more diverse in your blogging. I read this blog every day! I'm not taking credit for your change of focus just noting the coincedence.

If I didn't have an official role in the CPC I would blog more and expand upon my own opinions. But since I do have an official role, I usually limit myself to pointing out interesting things that others say. C'est la vie.

Right Ho. Fair enough. I want to point out, though, that my judgement of BT is my own; Scott's remarks were only a catalyst. And, yes, indeed, there are better and worse in every group--both in quality of thought and in vigour of presentation.

I 'discovered' your blog even before your first 'who is buckets' post, have read it regularly, and enjoy it. I was a bit surprised to see you joining BT because it is so polemical.

It's interesting how perceptions differ. On the 'vigour' scale, Scott has never struck me as very polemical, and Mark only slightly more so. (Indeed, your exchange with Scott is about as sharp as I've ever seen him.) But this may be the point. It's easier to detect that kind of thing--and, when it comes down to it, most other failings--in people who have harshly different opinions. It's something we should all keep in mind be for escalating a flame war.

Vitor. Thanks for dropping in. I'll leave it to you to decide what you want to link to. (And I did not call anyone 'loonie'--I wrote 'least attractive'.) But I think you would do well to remember before you link anywhere that you represent the CPC and a link is a kind of endorsement.

You may be surprised by this, but I missed most of the identity controversy. I was in 'beagle-with-his-nose-to-the-ground' mode--I was convinced that the interest in Grewal would fade within days, felt like I was one of very few that actually understood the tapes, and was keen to have my 'version' out there before it passed. I have just recently gone back and seen some of it. Some of it is funny, in retrospect; some of it hostile; all of it pretty wrong. (I really am no one interesting.)

Was there a change in tone? I don't remember making any. It might, of course, have something to do with what I mentioned to Right Ho, above. We don't give one another the benefit of the doubt. If you feel that I haven't done so in this post, please forgive me and regard it as a gentle reminder that you are in a different position from the run-of-the-mill blogging tory.

I will also point out to RightHo that if you had indeed read my entire article.. you would see that nowhere did I paint any of the Blogging Tories with a broad, narrow, wide or any other size brush.

See Bound By Gravity and his take on my column if you cant stomach reading the whole article at our site.

In fact, the very quote that Buckets has listed shows I am cautioning our group not to paint all Conservatives with a blanket accusation, as the Tories have tried to do with the Liberal Party over the Sponsership Scandal.I didnt state that all blogging tories were wingnuts.. I stated that the wingnut opinions held by certain Blogging Tories shouldnt automatically be transferred to the entire Conservative Party and presumed they believe the same things.

As for your retort to my rebuttal at your site, needless to say I dont agree with any of your points, but I'm not about to get into a shouting contest over it. We obviously disagree on the topic and wont be changing each other's mind over the issue. (As an aside, I am comfortable as a member of the United Church of Canada with thw Same Sex Bill, as is the United Church)

To Buckets: As for my being polemic, perhaps I was just having a bad day.. but it makes me angry when I see attempted arguments like this against Same-Sex Marriage... it obviously spilled over into my retort to him.

I can assure Mr Anonymous Journalist however, none of my posts were an attempt to "out him" as a journalist,nor am I going to start up a public campaign to figure out who he is.

I will concede I am curious as to which jourmalist he might be (I have my guesses) but I've got no particular inclination to try and out him. You (Buckets) are retaining your anonymity for personal and professional reasons, and if Mr RightHo wants to remain the same for his own reasons, I respect that.

Thanks for your words of support, Scott. But apologies really don't much sense in the blog world--at least about things that are weeks old. It's like a river. The water that you saw yesterday is a hundred miles away today, yet the river seems the same. (Or something like that.)

Ugh.. I was editing this and obviously you beat me to it before I could delete it :). But to repeat:

If and when Buckets does reveal himself, I hope Vitor will remember what he wrote on his blog musing about what payroll Buckets is on and publicly apologize to him for hinting darkly at some Liberal operative(s) running clandestine blogs.

Quite frankly, I almost wish Buckets would reveal himself; it would be highly amusing to see all the Blogging Tories such as Vitor and Peter Rempel who followed this line of reasoning contorting and trying to take back what they said about Mr Buckets.

Buckets, all I can say is come clean. If you are worthy of my being agog, I promise to be agog.But somehow I doubt it.

PS: the fact that Scott Tribe knows who you are might be raised as a point to give credence to my theory!

PPS: yes Zorpheus - I abuse the exclamation mark :-( and the elipse :-((It's a rhetorical trick to make my writing seem more conversational - a deliberate effort not to fall into the academic form of narrative that I was trained in. Sorry it doesn't meet your high standards of prose.

How would I knowing who Bucket is lend credence to your theory? I dont exactly dine with Liberal operatives every other night.. we bloggers havent gotten to that level yet. ;)

Your theory is out to lunch, Vitor.. trust me. The only thing you're right about is you wont be agog if/when he reveals himself. He is no famous or well-known operative of anything, and isnt even involved in politics in his everyday routine.

But carry on with the conspriacy theories if you wish.. its very amusing to read.

For the record, I never believed that Buckets was a Liberal operative. A sympathizer, perhaps. But not an operative. I guess that makes me a rare bird among conservative bloggers, journalists and party activists!

Scott -- By the way, I was only kidding about Buckets being a Liberal operative on my blog (http://conservativeship.blogspot.com/2005/07/buckets-of-right-ho.html). Much the same way Buckets was teasing me for increasing "traffic." Don't you know a joke when you see it?